SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. – The debate comes down to which response is the most urgent and necessary reaction to climate change.
Climate change is reversible and can be solved through mitigation efforts. Adaptation strategies leave families and friends in lesser developed regions to slowly wither away. Mitigation is global and long term while adaptation is local and short term. Mitigation is permanent. Adaptation must be constantly adjusted to address current damage.
Examining the scientific consensus about the origins of warming and the rate of change concludes that it can be mitigated in the short term.
Richard Muller, founder and scientific director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, released a peer reviewed study concluding that climate change trends are due entirely to human carbon dioxide emissions. George Monbiot, former professor of environmental politics at Oxford University, proves that we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions to safe levels.
Any natural forces balance natural sources of climate change. Anthony Watts, president of weather data company Intelliweather Inc. and winner of the American Meteorological Society’s Seal of Approval (see note, below), shows that clouds have an extremely large cooling effect on the world. These forces create a zero-sum advance as natural forces cancel each other out.
Thus, only human-made emissions, such as factory and car secretions, could cause runaway global climate change because they lack natural negative feedbacks to balance them.
Geoengineering provides the real answer to climate change, reversing its course permanently.
First, carbon sequestration, as described by Columbia University geophysics professor Klaus S. Lackner, takes CO2 from our atmosphere, securing it in permanent storage. Columbia University physicist Peter Eisenberger created an effective model that proves, through real world testing, that carbon sequestration can be used on a global scale and can prevent the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from ever exceeding 450 ppm, below dangerous levels. It would also bring levels down to below pre-industrial levels by 2100 and keep it there permanently.
Solar radiation management, according to the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, would reduce climate change effectively. Forms of solar radiation management, such as marine cloud whitening, lower environmental temperatures and reverse global warming’s effects.
This preemption – that global warming is reversible and that geoengineering staves off harmful effects entirely – makes adaptation obsolete.
Destined to fail
Adaptation might be appealing, but it is destined to fail. Many countries, especially developing ones with large, vulnerable populations, will not be able to afford adaptation measures. With no accurate data to forecast climatic impacts, nations will not be able to adapt in time, which leaves them unprotected to disasters.
The Copenhagen Consensus and the United Nations has estimated the cost of adaptation be around $140 billion to $170 billion. However, after thoroughly assessing the costs of adaptation, European ministers and climate and economy experts from Oxford and Cambridge universities have reported that the true cost of adaptation is about $500 billion dollars each year.
Adaptation projects worth $500 billion are not a feasible option for developing countries nor a cheap option for developed ones. This fiscal reality leaves many countries unprotected to the negative impacts of climate change, including droughts, famine, and ecosystem loss.
Furthermore, cities with greater land surface and populations, such as Los Angeles or Miami, will be much more vulnerable because the timeframe to implement necessary modifications is elongated. This added obstacle would result in a failure to adapt and a significant waste of time and money. Adaptive measures for developed countries may be implemented in time, but many nations in the world will be vulnerable to runaway climate change. The shifting nature of adaptation targets will prevent timely minimization of climate effects.
Lastly, maladaptation is where the human response actively undermines the capacity of society to cope with climate change or contributes to the problem and increases the vulnerability to it. In cases of coastal zones, adaptive practices like inappropriate coastal-defense schemes and coastal-habitat conversions are maladaptive.
In cases of agriculture, drought-resistant crops proved to have a negative impact as well. Drought-resistant genes can be passed onto weedy populations, creating a new species of weeds that can reduce crop quality, interfere with harvest, serve as hosts for crop disease, and produce chemical substances that are toxic to crops. These adaptive measures have proven to hinder the ability to respond to climate change.
The first priority
Mitigation should be the first priority because, without it, the costs of adaptation would spike dramatically. Many of these adaptation mechanisms needed for Third World countries require implementing tools that can override natural disturbances caused by global warming. Leading nations have an egocentric mindset that leads them to make empty promises when vowing to contribute funds to Third World countries, as New Zealand's NewsDay opined in 2012.
If the world is focused on adaptation, Third World countries will suffer the catastrophes caused by climate change while "rich countries will muddle through with dikes, crops redesigned to survive drought, more air conditioning and the like," Peter Passell wrote in the news magazine Foreign Policy.
Mitigation not only permanently removes greenhouse emissions from the atmosphere, it provides a worldwide solution that does not exclude any country. By having an international solution to climate change, not a single human would be in danger of extinction.
These articles originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.